Mediaboss Marketing

Liberals aren't welcoming enough to Trump voters, or so the headlines say. Every week theres another batch of think pieces scolding Democrats and leftists for being mean to folks who cast their ballot for the former reality television star.The New York Times quotes a small-business owner complaining that liberals tell him,"You're an idiot if you support any part of Trump." Protests against Trump, we're told, push Trump voters to double down on love of Trump. The left must assure Trump voters that they are awesome and lovely and wonderful people. Or else.

Isn't there something backwardabout all of this? Trump won. Republicans won the White House and both houses of Congress; they have the ability to choose a Supreme Court justice. Trump voters are in power; they are going to get the policies they desire, more or less. If anyone has a right to be bitter and resentful, isn't it the left? Why are Trump voters nursing a sense of grievance? They got what they wanted.

In the usual course of things, it's the winners who are supposed to reach out to the losers, not the other way around. Generally, the new president takes steps to assure the losing party that he's planning on governing for all Americans. Shortly before his inauguration in 2009, Barack Obama held a dinner honoring his defeated Republican opponent, John McCain.Obama also kept Republican Robert Gates, Bush's defense secretary, at his post.

Such bipartisan gestures are typical for a new president and you'd think Trump would be more eager to make them than most. Despite the pundits'warnings that leftists will never be popular again if they do not make nice with Trump voters, the truth is that millions more people voted against Trump than voted for him. He is a deeply divisive figure even within his own party.

As an unorthodox candidate with few long-term ties to the GOP, it would make sense for him to try to find common ground with Democrats. Trump could have appointed compromise picks to his Cabinet, for example. He could have kicked off his legislative agenda with an infrastructure project, which many Democrats signaled they would support.

Instead, Trump has appointed hard-right ideologues to his Cabinet, relied on right-wing, white-nationalist-affiliated gutter journalists like Stephen Bannon for his advisorsand pushed the most polarizing aspects of his agenda, such as banning travelers from majority-Muslim countries. He's even been weirdly reluctant to condemn anti-Semitic bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers a gimme bipartisan gesture if ever there was one.

In speeches, he returns obsessively to the November election, insisting his electoral victory was historically large, even though it was one of the narrower ones in recent history, and claiming that people who voted against him did so illegally. Rather than assuring those of us in the opposition that he is our presidenttoo, he has gone out of his way to say that our dissent is illegitimate, and that he despises us.

This is the message from others on the right as well. Congressmen faced with angry town hall meetings blame paid protesters, refusing to acknowledge their own constituents. And pundits write incessantly about how the left needs to embrace Trump supporters, presenting those voters as the real Americans with real grievances, whose egos must be eternally salved, even in victory.

People on the left aren'tfocused mainly on being mean to Trump voters. On the contrary, people on the left are scared of Trump voters and what they have wrought, and with good reason. Trump and the Republicans have promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, but have not said how they would replace it; people fear what will happen to them if they have no access to healthcare. Trump has made frightening comments about sending troops into cities like Chicago. Immigration agents are arresting people leaving church shelters. The list could go on.Many people are genuinely, and justifiably, afraid of what is happening, and what will happen, under a Trump administration.

Trump is the one in power; Trump voters are the ones who put him there. Why exactly is it up to the left to reassure them?

Trump voters are upset, we're told, because they're being called bigots or racists. I can't speak for the left as a whole, obviously, but I know that I, personally, would love to be convinced that Trump supporters don't approve of bomb threats against synagogues, and don't want people with cancer to die without care. I would love Trump voters to demonstrate that they are better than the president's worst rhetoric.

I don't have any particular desire to yell at or insult Trump supporters. But I would say to them: You won. Your candidate is in power. If you think the people who voted against you are human, this is your chance to show it. And if you don't, then yes, the people you're kicking are going to judge you.

Noah Berlatsky is the author most recently of Corruption: American Political Films.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionorFacebook

Originally posted here:
Trump voters won. Why should liberals be nice to them? - Los Angeles Times

CRUZ: Mark, I'm pretty sure that's the first time we've ever walked out to dance music. (LAUGHTER)

LEVIN: Well, I did think about holding hands, but...

(LAUGHTER)

... I didn't think that would come off right.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, it is my honor to be here with Senator Cruz. We're going to have a short discussion about the Constitution. How many of you support the Constitution?

(APPLAUSE)

So we're not at the DNC event here, that's obvious.

(LAUGHTER)

Senator Cruz...

CRUZ: I think the smell would be somewhat different.

LEVIN: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

He means pot, of course.

(LAUGHTER)

Study ambiguity or something, right?

(LAUGHTER)

You're one of the leading constitutionalists, not just in the Senate, but in the country. And one of the problems we have in this country today is so much of what we do is not within the constitutional construct. You have introduced an amendment to the Constitution to place term limits on members of Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

So tell us why you did it and tell us about your amendment.

CRUZ: Well, Mark, I think it's one of the first and biggest steps we can take to actually drain the swamp.

(APPLAUSE)

You look across this country people are fed up with Washington. This election was the American people saying, enough already with the corruption in Washington and it's both parties. Its Democrats and Republicans who have been here too long, who've become captured by this city and -- and if you look at -- President Trump campaigned on draining the swamp, on term limits.

You look at congressional leaders. We've got majorities in both Houses, I think we ought to demonstrate that we heard the voters, bring up term limits, pass it, and send it to the states for ratification. And what's amazing is the support for this, it cuts across in this polarized time, you get super majorities of Republicans, or Democrats, of Independents who all say, throw the bums out and we ought to listen.

(APPLAUSE)

LEVIN: Now, it takes time to get these sorts of things passed, because you've got to develop support among the American people and so forth. So, what should the people in this room and across the country do? Because obviously you have an entrenched ruling class, and they're not going to say yeah, let me vote myself out.

So, what do we do? We put pressure on them? How should we handle this?

CRUZ: Look, hold us accountable. There is an incredible power the men and women in this room, the men and women of CPAC, the grassroots have the ability to get people's attention, to hold our elected officials accountable -- hold every one of us accountable.

The message that I am conveying to President Trump, to the Cabinet, to leaders in both Houses is real simple. Let's do what we promised. Let's deliver on the promises and if we do that, we'll win at the ballot box and if we don't, the people will hold us accountable for that too.

LEVIN: Let me ask you about the courts. We saw what the 9th Circuit did, or a panel of the 9th circuit on an executive order, that once the executive order was modified, really it was even a controversial executive order from a constitutional point of view, and then you have three judges who did what they did. The other day we had the 4th Circuit basically tear the guts out of the Second Amendment...

CRUZ: Yup.

LEVIN: ... reject the Heller decision in the Supreme Court. So the Gorsuch nomination's important. How do we get our hands around all this?

CRUZ: Well, you're right. You look at judicial activism, and those are two great examples, the 9th Circuit and the 4th Circuit decision in recent weeks. If you look at the 9th Circuit, it's based in California, its long been the most liberal Court of Appeals in the country.

If you look at the decision of the 9th Circuit and the decision of the California District Court -- actually the Washington District Court that struck down, that enjoined the president's order, both decisions are utterly lawless. You know, the reason the Constitution gives judges life tenure is so they can be independent of political pressures and follow the law.

I've read the District Court decision, I've read the Court of Appeals decision, they don't even cite the controlling federal law. By statute, Congress has given the president the authority to suspend immigration -- any class of immigration if he deems it in the national interest. Now, any judge that was actually being a judge would begin with a statue, would look to the precedence, would interpret it -- they don't even mention the statute. They just say, we don't like this policy and there engaged in legislation. You take the 4th Circuit decision, upholding Maryland's laws on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The 4th Circuit used to the most conservative court in the country. I started my career as a law clerk of the 4th Circuit, and it was 20 years ago, the 4th Circuit was tremendous -- it was dedicated to protecting our constitutional rights.

The 4th Circuit now, they invented this new test for the Second Amendment, and here's what their test said. "The Second Amendment doesn't protect a weapon if it would be useful in a military context."

(LAUGHTER)

This test isn't just sort of questionable, it isn't just a little bit out there, it is nuts.

(APPLAUSE)

The Second Amendment was designed explicitly to protect weapons that would be useful in a military context.

(APPLAUSE)

If we were living back in 1789, your musket would be really useful in a military conflict. If you were called up to service, they said bring your musket. And indeed, the First Congress passed a law. You want to know the first gun control law in America? First Congress passed a law mandating that all able-bodied men must own a musket.

(APPLAUSE)

Under the...

LEVIN: That's an individual mandate we can live with.

CRUZ: There you go.

That's -- under the 4th Circuit's test, they say well gosh, if it would be useful in a military context. In the Second Amendment, it's not about hunting, it's not about target shooting, it's about protecting your home and your family and your life.

(APPLAUSE)

So under the 4th Circuit's test, the only things that are protected are things that are not useful in a military context. So apparently, the Second Amendment protects feather dusters.

(LAUGHTER)

You have a right to have a feather duster. If anyone breaks in, you can make sure they're really clean as they're robbing your house.

(LAUGHTER)

This is lawless. And it's why after eight years of Obama, there are few, if anything, more important than putting principled constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The Gorsuch nomination is important. It matters. And mark my words, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.

(APPLAUSE)

Let's -- let's talk about separation of powers. We have this massive administrative state, this fourth branch of government within the executive branch. The executive branch does more legislating than the legislative branch. And they're pushing out 3,000, 4,000 laws, regulations every year.

Isn't there a law that Congress passed itself, the REINS Act, that empowers itself to do something about this? Well, that should be one of the singular priorities of this new Congress and of this new administration, is reining in the out of control regulatory state.

The REINS Act would require Congress to approve any regulation that would have an impact of greater than $100 million on the economy. Now, you want to talk about a basic common sense step. If the federal government is going to cost $100 million or more of your jobs going away, at a minimum the people who are elected by the people ought to have to vote and say, yes, I support taking away your job; or no, I don't support taking away your job. (APPLAUSE)

And part of the regulatory state -- you know, what the framers understood was accountability. I mean, the Constitution is brilliant for accountability; for posing factions against each other, to fight amongst themselves in government, which protects our liberty. But also in ensuring that decision-making is made by those who the people can hold accountable.

The regulatory state now lets politicians wipe their hands and say, hey, it's not my fault. It just came from these bureaucrats who work for nobody and are accountable to nobody.

And I will say, one of the things that I have encouraged President Trump to do, and I'm optimistic about this, is to take on directly the regulatory state; to take it on, to fire bureaucrats.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I've encouraged President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- and by the way, let me just repeat that again: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

(APPLAUSE)

I just like making Chuck Schumer twitch.

(LAUGHTER)

But what I have urged them to do is put together a sophisticated, serious legal strategy to take on the regulatory state. Now, you'll be sued. You'll end up in the Ninth Circuit. You'll end up with activist judges trying to protect the regulatory state. But if you look at executive power -- we saw eight years of Obama. And what Obama did wrong with executive power is he tried to change the law. He tried to ignore the law. And under the Constitution, Article I, all legislative authority is vested in Congress.

CRUZ: And the president doesn't have the authority to change the law or ignore the law, and that's what Obama tried to do. But under Article II, all executive power is vested in one president of the United States. The regulatory state is Congress's efforts to undermine the president's authority. And my hope is we will see a president use that constitutional authority to rein in the uncontrollable, unelected bureaucrats and to rescind regulations.

I hope we see the Waters of the United States rule rescinded.

(APPLAUSE)

And reining in the regulatory state would have a massive impact on economic freedom going forward.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me -- impeachment. Impeachment is a constitutional function. Yes, the left keeps talking about impeachment. I mean, they were talking about impeachment before the inauguration.

(LAUGHTER)

And, you know, I think impeaching Obama in January probably would have been a mistake.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

So would retroactive impeachment be unconstitutional?

(LAUGHTER)

I don't know, but it would be fun.

(LAUGHTER)

Let me ask you this question. Do the Democrats understand they need to control the House of Representatives to impeach somebody?

(LAUGHTER)

You know...

(LAUGHTER) ... the Democrats right now are living in an alternative universe.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

The week after the election, I was back at the Capitol. I was in an elevator at the Capitol with a well-known liberal Democrat, who was simply staring ahead in this complete stupor.

(LAUGHTER)

And that hasn't changed.

(LAUGHTER)

They all look like that. They are in denial. And they're angry.

I mean, you and I were talking backstage before this. The anger on the left -- I've never seen anything like it. I mean, they're right now opposing everything. Democrats in the Senate are filibustering absolutely everything. This is the longest we've been. The Cabinet is still not confirmed. This is the longest we've been since George Washington without confirming a Cabinet.

They're filibustering everything. We voted a couple of weeks ago on approving the journal. Now, Mark, I'm going to confess, I have idea what the hell that is.

(LAUGHTER)

I've never -- I voted yes. I hope yes was the right vote.

(LAUGHTER)

Approving the journal is the most mundane procedural step. It is always done by unanimous consent. I didn't know we did that until they objected to it and said, no, you've got to have a full Senate vote; everyone come down to approve the journal.

What that means if this continues, and from the left, their base -- there's a technical term for their base -- Moscow.

(LAUGHTER)

I was going a different direction, which was bat-crap crazy.

See original here:
Read Ted Cruz's Remarks on 'Bat-Crap Crazy' Liberals - TIME

It's that time of year again when everyone connected with politics starts looking at what could be, or more precisely, what should be in the federal budget.

It's the Ottawa equivalent of sharing home remedies for the common cold. There's no shortage of advice on the best way to treat whatever ails the Canadian economy.

More spending on infrastructure! Drop the proposed price on carbon! Impose new or more user fees! Raise the minimum wage! Incentives for key industries!

This year isno different. The chatter's underway even though Finance Minister Bill Morneau hasn't confirmed when he plans to table his second effort at directing the country's fiscal policies. It could be as early as the first week of March;it could just as easily be the end of the month.

The Conservatives certainly aren't waiting for the date to be announced. This week, interim Leader Rona Ambrose led the Official Opposition's efforts to argue the Liberals, far from helping the middle class as promised in the 2015 campaign, are actually hurting them.

"Canadians are paying more and getting less," she said during question period Wednesday. "The Liberals are hiking taxes and adding debt. And for what? Canadians were promised a stronger economy and better jobs, but a lot of the jobs created are not better. Only one in five jobs created have been full time."

Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose criticizes the government's job-creation record during question period. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The prime minister, not surprisingly, insisted everything his government does is with the best interests of the middle class in mind.

"We lowered taxes on the middle class by raising them on the wealthiest one per cent," Justin Trudeau said. "We brought in the Canadian child benefit that gives more money to nine out of 10 Canadian families, which will help them with the costs of groceries, school supplies and raising their kids."

We'll see more of these kinds of exchanges in the days ahead as each party jockeys for public attention. The Conservatives believe the Liberals will raise taxes on capital gains, 50 per cent of which must currentlybe included in an individual's taxable income. The NDP still wants to close a loophole that allows corporate executives to avoid taxes on stock options.

The Liberals, by virtue of being in government, keep pointing to what they've already done.

But beyond the political posturing are some harsh fiscal realities, particularly the fact the country's finances are in worse shape now than even a few months ago.

The Finance Department released a forecast before Christmas that conceded the government, as of now, will run deficits until sometime mid-century.

Many economistsbelieve the election of Donald Trump, with his "America First" agenda, could have an impact on our balance of trade with the United States.

The potential impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's 'America First' approach is a concern for policy-makers in Canada. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

There are also concerns that if Trump follows through on his stated plans to slash corporate tax rates it could draw future investments away from Canadaand make this country less competitive vis-a-vis U.S. companies.

Kevin Page, a former parliamentary budget officer who heads the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, wrote this week that the Trudeau Liberals need a "policy reset" to addressthe deteriorating fiscal situation.

"Some of this deterioration comes from the moribund economic environment. Some of this deterioration is a policy choice a strategy to boost a sagging economy with the nation's fiscal credit card. Either way, program spending and debt are way up."

Kevin Page, a former parliamentary budget officer who heads the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, says the government needs a 'fiscal policy reset.'

The question facing Morneau is how to respond. He could follow through, as Page suggests, with a strategy to boost innovation and skills a key recommendation put forth last month by the finance minister's own economic advisory council.

Others believe the government has to look at ways to increase revenues.

One possible route is to reduce what's known as tax expenditures or tax credits by, for example, taxing health and dental benefits paid by employers or removing the tax credit given to Canadians over the age of 65.

Trudeau publicly ruled out taxing health and dental benefits.

But if his government is indeed looking for new sources of revenue, there's no easy target, says Janice MacKinnon, a former provincial finance minister who teaches public policy at the University of Saskatchewan.

"I think this is the most politically dangerous ground that they've been on," she says in this week's edition of The House podcast.

"For one, it's hard to remove tax credits without hitting the middle class whose taxes you promised to reduce."

The same concern exists with increasing the percentage of capital gains that are taxable on, forexample, the sale of shares people hold in publicly traded companies.

MacKinnon says the best option may be to do very little in this budget beyond following through on the innovation agenda and waiting for the infrastructure money announced in last year's budget to finally flow, with all the jobs that spending will create.

For his part, the prime minister doesn't appear to be willing to wait. In a speech he gave last weekend to a black-tie audience in Hamburg, Germany, Trudeau re-stated his vision of an activist agenda.

Trudeau delivers a speech at the St. Matthew's Day banquet in Hamburg, Germany, last week. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Some of the more interesting snippets have been dissected: that taxpayers aren't seeing the rewards of big corporate profits through more full-time jobs and higher wages, and that governments too often seem to be serving special interests instead of those of the ordinary citizen.

"Whether you're a business or a government, it's time to realize that this anger and anxiety we see washing over the world is coming from a very real place," he said. "And it's not going away."

It's an interesting diagnosis. Canadians will have to wait for the budget to see what remedy Trudeau's Liberals have in mind to treat what ails the Canadian economy.

Read the rest here:
Plenty of budget remedies offered as Liberals prepare prescription for ailing economy: Chris Hall - CBC.ca

David Brock speaks at the Clinton School of Public Service in Arkansas, March 25, 2014. | AP/Danny Johnston

Soapbox

Democrats need to embrace a new vision. That means dumping the failed leaders of the pastincluding David Brock.

By Leah Hunt-Hendrix

February 24, 2017

As Democrats and progressives rebuild for the Trump era, they need a bold vision and a new strategy. Now is not the time to re-litigate the fractious intraparty fights of years past. Instead, they need to rally around new leaders who offer a truly transformative way forward.

During the 2016 primaries, Democrats had a choice between an establishment candidate campaigning on her hard-won experience and insider credentials, or a liberal populist buoyed by a sea of small-dollar donors calling for big change. Democrats went with the status-quo candidate and experienced a general-election loss that grows more devastating with each day of the Trump presidency.

Story Continued Below

Clearly, we must face the fact that most Americans want significant changes. But rather than embracing this core lesson of 2016, Democratic establishment leadersthe very people who just lost the most important election in modern historyare using that defeat to grab more money and power, distracting allies from their failures by redirecting attention to the very real damage being done by Republicans. They embrace the same broken tactics, privileging well-connected insiders and an uninspiring agenda that was part of what led to their catastrophic losswhich would all but ensure further losses, more infighting and a deeply divided opposition to the Trump agenda.

Take, for instance, the continued prominence of David Brock and his organizations as centerpieces of the party apparatus. Brock is a conservative journalist-turned-liberal political strategist who some have called Hillarys attack dog. To many progressives, Brock represents the insider, establishment wing of the partythe Wall Street Democrats whoi have roused the ire of Americans who rightly feel that theyve been sold out. As a longstanding member of Hillary Clinton's team, during last years primaries, Brock orchestrated attacks on Bernie Sanders were brutal and unfairas when he proclaimed that it seems black lives dont matter much to Bernie Sandersand exacerbated divides within the Democratic Party.

Now that the election is over, Brock is calling for unity. Days before Trumps inauguration, he even wrote an open-letter apology to Sanders for his past insults. But Brocks recent machinationsincluding a January conference where he promoted his own organizations amid chatter that hell launch a Koch Brothers-style donor networkshow that he and those like him have no interest in learning from or adapting to what the country needs in this moment. Establishment figureheads are calling for Democrats to unify behind a common agenda, but its an old agenda with amorphous values, one that is more focused on defeating the right than on creating an economy and society that lifts up all people.

Brock is just one part of a broader constellation of insider efforts to maintain the dominance of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party against a rising progressive populism. Another such group is Third Way, the centrist think tank featured prominently at Brocks January conference. Third Ways president, Jonathan Cowan, is open about his intent to steer the party away from the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and back toward an uninspiring, Republican-lite, status quo agenda (which makes sense given that a major component of Third Ways budget comes from donors on Wall Street). Even now, in the wreckage of the 2016 election, Third Way has launched a $20 million effort to win back white working-class voters in the Rust Beltseemingly ignorant of the fact that the pro-Wall Street, pro-free trade economic policies that Third Way has long promoted helped lead to the Rust Belts demise.

Whether Brock or Third Way, these establishment players and institutions are narrowly focused on taking down the right in a game of hyperpartisan insider powerplays. They fail to recognize that our country is indeed suffering from major structural problemsproblems that demand a fresh approach. For Democrats to continue following those who brought us to this precipicethose who were, essentially, the architects of our 2016 losswould be a huge and historic mistake. It would reinforce what Americans, progressives especially, hate most about politics: that it has become an arena for a well-connected, powerful few who enjoy a consequence-free existence.

In this moment, progressive donors face a stark choice. They have the option of turning back the clock and freezing us in time at the exact moment we desperately need to leap forward. What donors choose to do during this timeand who they choose to follow and fundwill have significant and lasting impact. Their resources will help determine which people, programs and policies have the capacity to move forward. Will they choose the establishment path that represents little more than the lesser of two evils? Or will they try to build something more visionary: an inclusive progressive populism that can combat the ethno-nationalism now in ascension, offering hope in the face of Trump-era fear and despair?

If they take the former path, we are essentially doomed; with the latter, hope abides. Here is what that hopeful, radical vision could look like.

Espouse real values, not propaganda. Brock wants to create a new Breitbart of the Left, a propaganda machine. This is the last thing progressives need. Instead of fake news and propaganda, we need to get real and define the values that we want to define our country.

For what its worth, the right offers a vision of personal freedom and independence, however disingenuous and manipulative that may be. And they also offer communitythough that community is created through exclusion.

Ours must be a community created through inclusion. But people will never feel included if progressives embrace the same old losing playbook and elevate the same powerful insiders to positions of privilege. Instead of propaganda, Democrats need to articulate values and vision for Americato spread messages Democrats truly believe in, messages that resonate on an emotional level and speak to peoples real material concerns. If the Democratic Party cant offer something inspirational that is grounded in the core values of justice, equality and solidarity, we may need to build a party that does.

Seriously take on economic inequality, Wall Street and corporate power. Millions of Americanswhether theyre people of color, white, immigrants; whether they live in cities, suburbs, small towns or the country; whether theyre Republicans, Democrats, independents, voters or non-votersliving in poverty or struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck. Millions are unemployed or underemployed, choosing between health care, heat or housing. Many more feel like theyre slipping behind and lack the economic security they once had.

America has moved from a production-based economy to a financialized one that is producing less and less value for the majority of the population, while funneling profits to the wealthiest. Half a century ago, the U.S. had strong antitrust regulations, corporations could not spend unlimited sums on elections and workers had vehicles to voice grievances and bargain for fair pay. Today, the vehicles that support working people have broken down from neglect.

One need not be anti-capitalist to understand that the Democratic Party is complicit in this, having allowed for policies that deregulated the finance sector (under President Bill Clinton), allowed for the privatization of many public goods (including the weakening of the public education system through the promotion of charter schools) and bailed out Wall Street banks without taking measures to truly address the needs of struggling working Americans. These issues must be reckoned with, and if we cant propose a radically progressive economic agenda that offers a vision for transforming the financial industry and guaranteeing dignified jobs, then we should not be surprised when right-wing populism wins.

Stand up for racial justice. The Democratic Party establishment has long taken communities of color for granted, assuming they have their votes and creating a one-sided extractive relationship. They should not expect that people of color will turn out for them when they offer nothing in return.

Some liberals would argue that Democrats should have paid more attention to working-class whites, and made a mistake by overemphasizing racism and identity politics and political correctness. These analyses are, at best, simplistic. And they rely on an incorrect frame that makes economic and racial concerns either/orthat pits those concerns against one another, as though theyre mutually exclusive. Economic justice and racial justice arent competing, contradictory values. Theyre mutually reinforcing. Democrats and progressives must resist this binary and fight for policies that lift up all boats.

If Democrats actually make racial justice a core principle, they would not only be on the right side of history, but might in fact have the power to rebuild a party that is in a changing Americas own image. While Trump is feeding into a global right-wing populist wave that pits working-class white people against immigrants and people of color, Democrats have a chance to create an alternative that recognizes Trumps tactic for what it is: a way of scapegoating people of color while the ruling class continues to profit off a broken system. Its a historic opportunity to forge a progressive, multiracial populism that tackles corporate power and rectifies our broken economy while also lifting up a vision of pluralism.

Build local and state power through permanent political organizations rooted in community. One of biggest mistakes that Democratic donors continually make is short-term thinking around elections. Too often, campaigns helicopter into communities with an ask and an agenda, laying down temporary infrastructure in the form of short-term organizers, renting storefronts for a season, wasting hundreds of millions on high-priced consultants and TV ads, without any long-term strategy.

Its a quick hitdonors seek the instant gratification of investing directly in a candidate, rather than building something that might last. And thats a problem not only because it leaves Democrats to lurch from election to election without any sense of continuity or any overarching strategy, but also because its incredibly expensive and inefficient.

The right has done a fantastic job of building strong, permanent infrastructure that has become the backbone of innumerable campaigns and candidates. Such organizations exist on the left, like New Florida Majority, the Texas Organizing Project, and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, but they are drastically underfunded. Democrats need to build institutions that are rooted in communities, build local leadership, conduct voter engagement throughout the year, win elections (of course), and hold elected officials accountable.

Embrace new leaders. Its time for Democrats to rethink who they want to follow, and the kinds of people they want to lead. With respect, those who have led the Democratic Party and have brought it to this point should step aside.

The party needs a new vision. And it has a good starting place. Democrats have some visionary, inspiring elected officialsRep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Minnesota State Rep. Ilhan Omar, to name a fewand the party needs more like them. There is amazing work being done on the ground by people like Rashad Robinson at Color of Change, Heather McGee at Demos, and leaders of myriad state-based organizations whose effortswith more supportoffer a real vision for the Democratic Party. There are talented leaders who are ready to help change course, but for any of this to be fully realized, progressive donors need to break free from the clenches of the establishment and begin to make different kinds investments.

Four weeks into the Trump presidency, the resistance is in motion, but whether this anti-Trump energy catalyzes into an effective opposition with a coherent political agenda will depend, in large part, on access to financial resources to build the long-term capacity and infrastructure required to win on all levels. Donors will need to step up in a big way, resourcing bold strategies and leaders who are going to challenge the establishment.

Going forward, the Democratic Party needs to make clear that Democrats will be held accountable, not just by their opposition to Trump, but by their embrace of an agenda that truly addresses the deep scars of racism and economic inequality that mark our country.

If the party cant be transformed, it shouldnt expect to survive.

Leah Hunt-Hendrix is the co-founder and executive director of Solidaire, a community of individual donors and foundation allies committed to funding progressive social movements.

See more here:
The Wrong Way to Rebuild the Democratic Party - POLITICO Magazine

President Donald Trump.

Average attendance at a Lexington Democratic Town Committee meeting used to be about 25 people. Now, its more than tripled.

Nearly 100 people filled the room when Arlington Democrats gathered to elect delegates to this years state convention the highest turnout in more than a decade.

Advertisement

Even in Rehoboth, a Republican hamlet near the Rhode Island border, a sea of new faces filled the room when Democrats caucused just over a week ago a surprise for the local party chairman, who thought he knew just about every Democratic activist in town.

People are coming out of the woodwork, said Raymond Olivier, chairman of what he calls Rehoboths little town committee. (There are about 40 people in its database.) Its kind of an exciting time.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

The wave of political dissent sweeping the country has surged through the ground floor of the Democratic Party as scores of people try to find ways to push back against the policies of President Trump.

The possibility of arrest could keep undocumented workers from speaking out about unsafe conditions, advocates say.

This is a great shot in the arm for the Democratic Party. There is significantly more activism and organizing and passion, said Gus Bickford, chairman of the state party. All of the meetings I attend, I hear from people that its twice or three times as many people than normally show.

But here in Massachusetts, as nationally, the party is struggling with the next step what to do with the newly energized base of activists. Party leaders are trying to figure out how to harness the energy of various progressive factions without isolating those newcomers who balk at partisan politics. Nationally, Democrats are grappling with issues of organization and identity as party members meet this weekend in Atlanta to vote on a new chairperson.

Advertisement

In Massachusetts, Democrats are in the initial stages of picking the people who will decide the partys platform. Bickford said this years Democratic state convention is on track to be one of the largest off-year conventions in history. If the surge continues, it could have an effect on the ballot in 2018 when Democrats will try to oust Republican Governor Charlie Baker.

The job now for the committee is to keep in contact with all of those people and try to find things that people can do that are meaningful, said Margaret E. Coppe, chairwoman of the Lexington Democratic Town Committee. Thats our challenge.

Some have compared this left-leaning surge to the conservative Tea Party movement, which pushed the GOP to the ideological right during former president Barack Obamas time in office.

The question is, do all these protests send the Democrats more to the left and make them more responsive? Thats what Republicans did with the Tea Party, said Erin OBrien, chairwoman of the political science department at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

In the Republicans case, the Tea Party mounted challengers to incumbents, and also generally moved the GOP to the right.

State Republicans, for their part, say theyve also seen a surge in activism.

Since Election Day, weve had over 4,000 new individuals sign up to get involved with the party, and hundreds of people express an interest in running for office, said Terry MacCormack, a spokesman for the state GOP.

Bickford said whats happening now is vastly different than the Tea Party movement. This, he said, is more of a gut reaction to the things said and done by the president. It transcends partisan politics, which is why the party is treading carefully for fear of isolating unenrolled voters if opportunities to become politically active appear too partisan, he said.

It doesnt have to be our brand, Bickford said. This is much more about the future of this country, and also the safety of this country.

Working with nonpartisan organizations, such as labor unions, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP, allows everyone to be motivated against what is clearly wrong, he said. We have a president that lies. It should be all parties standing up and saying thats unacceptable.

Once people arrive at a protest, rally, or organizing workshop, Bickford said, party activists try to draw them in by collecting their contact information and engaging them about issues supported by the Democratic Party.

Thats how South Shore Action came to be, said Ellen Whalen, chairwoman of the Hingham Democratic Town Committee and one of the groups founders.

It started organically just after the election, she said. The town committee was supposed to meet for its holiday party in December, but that didnt seem appropriate given the election results, so friends and neighbors gathered to vent and talk. There wasnt an agenda beyond that, Whalen said.

About 40 people showed up, and she said the issues that came up ranged from womens rights to nuclear Armageddon.

They decided to meet again and keep the group nonpartisan so that people who had never before been involved in party politics could feel comfortable joining them.

Partisanship wasnt a requirement, she said.

The next meeting, 50 people showed. The two after that: 85.

Now, theyve broken into working groups based on areas of interest and invited Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, to speak. A crowd of 300 showed, Whalen said, adding that the group sends out a weekly newsletter to some 400 people.

Outside of the Democrat Party, there are people finding each other and then coming into the Democrat Party from these groups, she said.

Aimee Coolidge has been a member of the Arlington Democratic Town Committee, which she now heads, since 2000, and said shes only seen caucus attendance at these levels once, 15 years ago, when there were five gubernatorial candidates on the primary ballot. When the party caucused on Feb. 11 for the convention in June, 100 people showed.

Usually, you just show up at the caucus and there are less people than slots, but this year it was competitive, she said. Thats very unusual for an off-year.

Lexington Democrats havent caucused yet, but they have held monthly meetings and watched attendance skyrocket.

Before the election, we might have 25 to 30 people show up to a meeting, Coppe said. The last one we had, there was 80 [people] and the one before that was maybe 50.

The challenge, she said, will be keeping people engaged, although shes not too worried.

As long as the White House keeps doing the things theyre doing, well have plenty of material, she said.

Read more here:
Democrats are seeing a surge in local activism. Now what do they do with it? - The Boston Globe